Beijing deals counter-attack after Palmer rant

Shanghai The consequences from
Clive Palmer
’s anti-Chinese rant have been swift.

In Beijing on Tuesday morning, an Australian team had a meeting with a big state-backed financial institution. They were close to a global agricultural acquisition involving Australian and Chinese investors.

Then the bad news was delivered.

The Australians were told “under the current circumstances" the meeting could not go ahead.

Related Quotes

Company Profile

“We will get back to you when it is appropriate to meet again," said a ­Chinese representative of the bank, according to a person present.

An appointment scheduled for Wednesday was also cancelled.

And just to be sure there was no confusion as to why relations had suddenly frozen, a final point was raised.

“They asked us what was the definition of a mongrel," said the person at the meeting, who asked not to be named.

“They were honestly offended and so they should be."

For Australian businesspeople in China, Mr Palmer’s outburst, which included references to the Chinese as “mongrels" and “bastards", came at an awkward time.

Negotiations have reportedly become more difficult, as many deals are now tied to a long-awaited free-trade agreement, which the federal government hopes to sign this year.

‘They will use this against us’

The Australian investor who talked to The Australian Financial Review said he did not know how long the freeze in relations would last.

If the deal goes ahead, Australian shareholders’ role in the deal is expected to be much lower profile.

“They will use this against us," the source said.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce in Beijing had a meeting scheduled with the Ministry of Commerce on Wednesday. Some in the chamber played down Mr Palmer’s comments, insisting the Chinese were pragmatic and understood the outspoken ­politician’s views did not represent the Australian government.

Others were concerned the comments will be used as leverage in ­business and diplomatic dealings, even if their concerns were dismissed ­privately.

Mr Palmer made the inflammatory remarks on Monday night after being questioned over allegations made in court that he siphoned off $12 million from his Chinese Partner, Citic Pacific, and used some of the money to fund his federal election campaign.

It took the state media in China a day to respond, but when it did, the issue was no longer just about Mr Palmer.

Suddenly his comments were ­indicative of broader Australian attitudes toward China.

Newspaper suggests sanctions on Palmer

Global Times, which is known for its nationalistic and hawkish views, splashed the news across its ­Chinese edition.

In its prominent editorial, the newspaper said it was “the most vicious attack by one of the Australian elite in recent months" and showed that ­“Australian society has an unfriendly attitude toward China".

The newspaper singled out Prime Minister
Tony Abbott
and Foreign Minister
Julie Bishop
for recently making “bitter remarks against China without any reason".

“China must teach Canberra a ­lesson for sabotaging a bilateral relationship," it said.

“Australia has picked sides and embraced the US and Japan, but in the meantime, it keeps racking up economic profits from China. This situation is making it a radical ‘double dealer’ among all the nations which have relationships with China."

Global Times suggested China should impose sanctions on Clive Palmer and any companies which do business with him.

Wang Zhenyu, an assistant research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies, a think tank linked to the foreign ministry, said Mr Palmer’s ­comments did not “protect the interests of Australia" but were made “for his own interests".

He added that while disputes were inevitable in the business world, manipulating public opinion was “harmful to the general economic relations, and the image of the host economy."

Mr Wang said the “generally sound" bilateral relationship should be able to “stand this kind of abuse".

But added that both sides needed to be “watchful" to ensure the relationship wasn’t undermined.